On the Role of Fantasy and Metaphysics in Understanding the Human Condition

[Aggie]

Sometimes metaphysical is that which we clever self-aware beings have fabricated out of the ordinary, the mundane, into a tapestry of mystery and imagination:  only existing in the imaginary realm of our own inner visions--

-- which some even more cleverer (_{is that even a word?} ) are able to impart to others with mere words in a row...

Whereas I do not, on one had, believe there is some sort of mystical "out there" entities (such as fairies, gods, intentional-bumps-in-the-night-beings), on the other had I fully recognize that within the realm of the imagination?  There certainly do exist dragons, and fairy queens, and invisible pink unicorns, and wish-granting, and the occasional rescue of the orphaned child into a realm where she or he is a long-lost king or queen (_{depending on their individual proclivities-- why couldn't a girl become king in imagination-land?  Especially since boys regularly become queens even in real life...} ).

These realms can be easily as profound, nay, more profound than that humble river carving out the canyon-- for one day, the river may be damed up, it may be diverted, it may become polluted.

But the art that is fiction?  That flows from clever monkeys' imaginations?   That may well live forever*-- for we clever monkeys have even beamed some of this into the outer darkness.  Unwittingly, of course.

Okay, that's my 3 and a half cents worth...

__________

_{* well... not exactly forever, as eventually the universe will wind down one way or another.  Or else some greater force--perhaps from some supra-universe? -- may interefere and cause it to collapse back on itself.  Just like some clever monkeys who work in really clever monkey-laboratories, have surmised is what caused the current rapid expansive state to begin.  But 'forever' in the sense of the life-scale within the universe itself, in that life began in our neck of the woods roughly 4 billion years ago-- and to a clever monkey who's average lifespan is measured in microscopic fractions of that, 'forever' could be considered anything of a similar timespan.}

Great post, Bob. It resonated greatly with me, and so I've waited until I've had time to sit and think about it before making an admittedly lengthy and fairly outrageous reply to it:


I feel that our society has lost – and many other societies are rapidly losing – the ability to use our capacity for imagination and fantasy to help us understand and give meaning to the material realities of our lives. Symptomatically, I feel that many, many people are going through the entire course of their lives without ever finding any real meaning or understanding.  In my opinion, this lack of meaning is a driver in the ever increasing levels of anxiety, depression and mindless consumerism that characterizes 'affluenza'. I really do feel this is the source of the happiness paradox in modern society – past a certain point of financial stability, a richer society is often a less happy one.

Part of the long-term legacy of the of the Enlightenment has been the loss of the ability to understand the role of myths as aids to understand the common life-passages, events and psychological stressors that we all face in our lives. Unfortunately, we've lost the notion that fact is not synonymous with truth and that fiction/fantasy is not synonymous with falsehood.  This is not a criticism of scientific rationalism; I rather think it's an even bigger issue in the case of religious fundamentalist literalism.  An insistence that anything that isn't literally true must be worthless and false (unless carefully acknowledged as made-up and therefore by definition not worthy of 'belief') has IMHO led to the disparity we see.  If we insist that that which is not literally true cannot hold truth, it's not surprising that believers in literary works containing truths they hold dear go to extraordinary ends and perform distorted rationalizations to attempt to support the literal truth of those works.  Likewise, if we insist that our understanding of how the world works can only be based in knowing the mechanistic and material process and events involved, we (IMHO) lose a great deal of our ability to even realize that other modes and methods of understanding exist.  For some of us, a complete knowledge of how the nuts, bolts, gears, nucleic acids, atoms and quarks fit together still represents a woefully incomplete understanding of what the whole thing means. For those who have virtually no knowledge of the scientific and material explanations that humankind has managed to suss out to this point...  well, quite frankly they're up shit creek with a turd for a paddle.

Before we had solid scientific truth, human understanding of the world necessarily included myth and fantasy. In many cases, the dominant myth-systems of the day were used as means of power and control to horrible ends.  Scientific sentiment and theory has also been used to such ends (eugenic sentiments as support for genocide, for example).  In neither case do I believe that the underlying systems were responsible for these atrocities; strip out the factors relating to dominance, power and control, these theories, myths, ideologies and belief systems lose their teeth and ability to drive good people to do evil things.

I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments on the role of imagination and the wonder of fiction.  However, I feel that we've done a very good job of stripping out much of the power that imagination and fiction could have in our lives by restricting the ways they are used. Imagination, and the wild, wonderful flights of self-expression that derive from it, is much too frequently enforced as being a thing for children, to be discarded as one approaches adulthood. Fiction is to be enjoyed as an escape from the world, but rarely allowed to be seriously approached as a commentary on or a guide to our lives. The insistence on 'belief' in spiritual or religious material and concepts creates a false dichotomy and dangerous divide between those who believe or do not believe this or that bit of scribbling by people (often lost to history) who have followed their imaginations to an understanding of some aspect of their life, their times or the problems facing their societies.  Instead, we split into little groups who insist that the problems of our times and societies can either be solved by pure rationalism and logic, or by blind adherence to an old set of rules which has little correspondence to our current conditions and current state of knowledge*. Neither appears to work very bloody well, IMHO.

_{*by example, I am always in awe of how much very sensible and practical public health policy is set out in Leviticus, considering the time in which it was written.  Until fairly recently, that book probably contained the best available set of procedures for dealing with mould-based 'sick building syndrome' (well, maybe not the bit about using a live bird to sprinkle the blood of a dead bird around the place), plus some overly harsh but quite practical measures for reducing exposure to Trichinella and red tide contaminated shellfish.  One might also wonder whether the restrictions on certain food animals and sources may have been designed to keep a nomadic people from settling in areas where they'd be in conflict with other tribes – I suspect it's hard to wander the desert with a herd of pigs instead of goats or cattle.}

I personally see great potential for personal satisfaction in consciously blurring the lines between fact and fantasy in the search for understanding and truth. This is the role I see exploring the metaphysical playing with respect to the individual. The great trick about this – which is admittedly rather difficult on a wholesale level – is to keep the appropriate amount of wink/nudge and awareness of the fact that what one is embracing as an explanation or model of understanding is not literally, factually 'true', and that this does not mean that it is in any way necessarily 'false' in essence.

On a community level, I see the greatest potential not in ideology or beliefs, but in creating a participatory culture of expression and pseudo-ritual. I feel that this is woefully lacking, and that in the rejection of the trappings of religion in secular society, we have all too often lost any means of dragging each other out of our individualist self-isolation and into a communal myth-space that has the ability to connect us and bond us together at the roots of authentic human experience. Our focus on rationalism and individualism has too often led us to view any use of one's abilities and talents for the purpose of promoting trans-individual experience, without or beyond any centrally-imposed narrative, as at least a waste of time, and even as a dangerous and socially deviant exercise. Especially in heterogeneous, immigrant-based societies, we have lost nearly all traces of folk culture or the ability to generate or participate in authentic folk culture and public festivity (unless it is carefully wrapped in the guise of financially profitable enterprise). We don't sing, we don't dance, we don't beat on drums, we rarely feast with those we don't know intimately, and if we do any of these things, they are stripped of any real expression, character or exuberance until they are 'safe'.  I find it confounding that in a society that worships private individualism, we also worship public conformance to the blandest and most highly sanitized standards of behaviours and expression possible. We may tolerate a fairly wide range of personal expression in fashion, speech or expression of beliefs in others, but the vast majority simply cannot tolerate these forms of expression in themselves, unless conducted with excellence.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I have long suspected that humans using fictional universes solely existing within the collective imaginations¹ of a shared experience.

Not all that long ago, as these things went, that collective imaginary space existed with the ritual story-telling; that was the only way we clever monkeys had, for we had not stumbled upon the notion of symbolizing our mouth-noises yet.

Then, for the longest of times, our collective imaginary universes² could only exist by way of words in a row.

And I think, this method both contributed to the expansion of the imaginary universe, but also to the loss of some of it's parts-- for words-in-a-row are necessarily limited, even if there are illustrations-in.   How to capture the reader's response to some Great Story?  Apart from the fortunate few, who were also clever monkeys, at least with regards to arranging words-in-a-row in a clever way.  As for the loss, we can never know-- those who's brains contained those parts are long gone from anything we may access in the here-and-now. 

But, I'm drifting a bit:  the latest incarnation of these imaginary universes, is in the form of pictures-in-a-row-- so clever are these modern monkeys, that the pictures fly by so fast, they fool our monkey-senses into seeing them as having a kind of alive-ness.

But, any monkey can see these fast-pictures-in-a-row, and marvel-- the requirement for the individual monkey-brain to contribute some imagination to go with, is greatly diminished.   It is sufficient to simply watch passively.

And I wonder at that-- is the latest method of story-telling, failing to teach our young, how to use their imaginations?

And, as I ponder that, I realize it's silly:  no, of course it isn't.  Moving-pictures is no detriment to the collective imaginary response than were the first written books--

-- and I've no doubt the oral storytellers lamented this "newfangled writing", back in their day, as the "end of all civilization as we know it".

Well. 

As it turned out?  They were actually right about that one!  Writing certainly did end the pre-literate phase of human culture-- for good or ill, it ended it definitively.

And who's to say what the invention of moving-picture telling of imaginary tales will have on the long-term civilization we clever monkeys have invented so far?

I suspect it will end the writing-only civilization in ways we cannot imagine.

But I also doubt very much, this clever, but watching monkey will be around to witness what it turns out to be.

And what about this latest phase of our clever monkey-ness?  The intertubes?

What will a tool that essentially connects the entire world together, instantly, have on these disparate and distinct cultures we clever monkeys have made for ourselves?

We've already seen one bona-fide miracle:  Egypt.   And the almost bloodless change of government, using that clever tool, the intertubes-- something that would have been impossible even 30 years previously.

I suspect Those That Control Power do not yet realize the genie they have unleashed upon the world; and I also suspect it has already grown beyond their ability to control--

--- even China's desperate attempts at bottling up the intertubes has not been successful.

I see it as the first Global Village-- the intertubes is a kind of Global Campfire, wherein we clever monkeys can tell our monkey-stories and describe monkey-imaginary Universes to the world at large.

Where we monkeys go from there?

Author C Clarke hinted in Childhood's end-- but I think he missed it, he imagined a sort of evolutionary next-step.

I think the next-step will be one of a global cultural revolution myself.


__________________________________

¹ both the author's and the even greater one within the minds of the readers--who always have a greater scope than the original authors-- that's the way of these things.

² and make no mistake-- there were always multiple universes, even within a mono-culture, no two individuals respond exactly the same to a Great Story.

[pieces o nine]

I enjoyed reading both of those posts, gentlemen.  Good thoughts to muse on.

[Aggie]

I see it as the first Global Village-- the intertubes is a kind of Global Campfire, wherein we clever monkeys can tell our monkey-stories and describe monkey-imaginary Universes to the world at large.

Where we monkeys go from there?

Author C Clarke hinted in Childhood's end-- but I think he missed it, he imagined a sort of evolutionary next-step.

I think the next-step will be one of a global cultural revolution myself.

Are you familiar with the works of Marshall McLuhan?  If not, I highly recommend you look into his ideas. Your post resonates strongly with them.

Ten years ago, I would have probably agreed with you.  These days, I take a rather more pessimistic view (evidenced by various rants around here), and think we will not be around a Global Campfire, but in a Global Daycare.  We will be allowed to play, and occasionally to learn the approved lesson plan, but we will be under such wonderful scrutiny that if we step out of line we will be given a time out or maybe even smacked.

Undoubtedly we are in the midst of a global cultural shift, but I now think we are moving from the bottom-up days of the internet into one where it is controlled from the top down.  I hope the freedom of pseudonymity continues to exist for a long time, but even at this point we've lost not-for-profit user-created platforms as the dominant form of online interaction. We are being strung along by the pied pipers of social networking into a monopolized, commercialized, centrally controlled version of the Internet, one where we beg Big Brother to keep us under its watchful eye, lest we be socially excommunicated. 

That is why I feel - to the core of my being - that it is vital to start bringing back social connectivity in the public space, in real life, and in a semi-anonymous fashion. If we are to recover genuine human connection, it's my opinion that we need to embrace the antithesis of social networking.

The Monastery has captured that feeling. This place feels like a Global Campfire. I want to bring it to the world.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

McLuhan is/was an interesting character.

But I think the genie (internet) is well out of the bottle:  to quote Princess Leah?

"the more you tighten your grip, the more they slip through your fingers"

[Aggie]

But I think the genie (internet) is well out of the bottle:  to quote Princess Leah?

"the more you tighten your grip, the more they slip through your fingers"

Perhaps I need a little clarification on the above.


With regards to oppressed societies using these new forms of media to effect social change, I don't disagree, and they are a source of optimism.  However, I also feel strongly that these new forms of media have the potential to reduce the actual level of free speech in free societies.  I can see several mechanisms by which this could work, and not all of it is inherently sinister.  

I may be guilty of a solipsistic outlook, but I am one of those cowardly types who would refrain from openly participating in a protest lest the Powers that Be start a file on me. I have no illusions that I'm safe from identification using a pseudonym if a determined entity was trying to track me down, but I'm terrified with the relative ease of creating automated profiles on EVERYONE and bulk monitoring for red flags in an identified online society. If I was forced into that sort of situation, you certainly wouldn't see content like the OP from me, and my internet output would be reduced to inanities. I fear a culture of self-censorship as much as overt crackdowns. Braver folks would likely disagree.

[Opsa]

So Aggie, how would you like to bring a Global Campfire to the world?

[Griffin NoName]

I really do feel this is the source of the happiness paradox in modern society – past a certain point of financial stability, a richer society is often a less happy one.

This has been verified by research - I don't have the reference to hand, but it was in my "Well-Being" module of the MSc. Poverty is linked with lack of feelings of well-being, but increased wealth past the point of having enough to live on does not bring any increase in well-being.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I've been pondering the problem of meaning for a while, both in the abstract and personal, and while my view is for the most part existentialist, there is always the difficulty of finding that meaning.

For too long we have been defined by our struggle to survive, we wondered about meaning but it was a short lived exercise, because most of the time we were dealing with survival, and if life proved to be too overwhelming, death soon followed, no time for depression when predators abound regardless if those were primeval or social predators.

Still the questions remained and some tried to answer them through either myth, religion or philosophy: is the struggle worth the effort? And ironically the less we struggle the harder it becomes to justify it, the longer we have to ponder what is the meaning of all this, the questions about our fortune and/or misfortune, luck or plan, chance, synchronicity or deeper meaning. We have learned to control our environment but yet we have little control over our own lives, which again reinforces the search for meaning.

I reject religion as a source for meaning, but the overwhelming majority of our fellow human beings embrace it, and it is my belief that it is so because it's an easy answer, because it easy to think that someone already had all the answers and that following some arcane rituals we can reach them too. Searching for our own answers is hard and potentially painful as it makes us confront our reality, our choices and our prospects for the future.

In contrast when we have to fight for survival, survival is it's own goal, it's own meaning, I exist to exist, I defy the odds and survive and I firmly stick my tongue out to fate for as long as I can. Not surprisingly, science pretty much says that that is the meaning, to survive, to leave our imprint on the world in some form or another, be it in the form of genes or works or ideas, we exist and we want to leave something behind, and that applies even to the most fervent believer.
----
As a side note, I have some nits to pick about Aggie's argument, I see plenty of stories out there, I see books and songs, paintings and symphonies, movies, theatre, even blogs and electronic forms like video games. I don't think it is necessarily mindless entertainment, as someone who occasionally incurs in show business, I can see the passion of those doing it, the meaning of their work and how the struggle is transformed in a search for meaning and perfection. I do acknowledge that I am privileged, I use the tiny bit of talent I have to give meaning to my own life, and I rejoice when I can see others doing the same, more so if my son is among them. I bet Opas feels the same way in the theatre, despite the long hours and low pay. Still, not only artistic talents are a gateway for meaning, ideas are too and those can give enormous meaning to someone's life.

Can everybody enjoy those meanings? Perhaps not, but then again the simple minded are more likely dealing with the struggles of life, and they can find meaning in their work, their children or perhaps (and I'm very judgmental by saying it) in religion.

[Griffin NoName]

Someone on TV just said the only meaning is to pass one's genes on. Bad news for the childless. Personally, while I have passed my genes on, I am not sure how meaningful I find it, lying around at home all day alone never seeng the products except on Skype for ten minutes a week. Sorry, probably threadjack.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

To me, meaning for life is only as much (or as little) as one chooses to give it.

By that, I mean-- life has whatever meaning we choose to assign to it-- being self-aware, it is entirely up to us to make that choice (or not-- some folk do not choose to make any meaning of their lives; and that's a kind of Zen meaning all of it's own).

That being said?  I think it's silly to confine "meaning" to simple genetics-- for indeed, every human is cross linked with every other human on the planet.  We are, each one of us, the progeny of those who came before, and we are each related to those that come after; regardless if we had a direct hand in passing them on, or only assisted from the sidelines.

I always rejected the (to me) very silly idea that there was some sort of magical link in one's own genes; as if other people's kids' genes were not equally magical?   Possessing of equal value?

Who cares where the genes came from-- all that matters is that they are human, right?  Meaning they are related to yours anyway.

If we share 95%+ genes with chimpanzees?  What is the rate at which we share genes with our neighbors?  Our distant friends on another continent?  99%?   Higher?  Does it matter all that much?

I say, it doesn't --

-- for certainly there are plenty of people who clearly care not one whit about the fate of any genetic offspring they may have produced.  And that is offset, I say more than offset, by people who care deeply for all humankind, regardless of who's genes shuffled the deck to produce them.

What is the meaning of life?

To live, to laugh, to love, to wonder, to learn something new, to taste again, a favorite recipe, to drink a newly opened wine, to exchange ideas with distant (and near) friends.

I could go on in this theme, but I think the point is made:  to be a cooperative species; cooperating in a variety of ways.

Why needs there be more than that?   Isn't that enough?  Isn't this small corner of an amazing universe enough?*

I think .... it is.

____________

_{* credit for these last two lines to Tim Minchin's beat-poem, Storm}

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

okay, if you cannot find it, or am unfamiliar with it, here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0W7Jbc_Vhw

[youtube=425,350]V0W7Jbc_Vhw[/youtube]

[Opsa]

Oh my god, what an awesome poem! (Well, not god, but, you know.)

Thank you.

I don't suppose that there is any one correct answer to "what is the meaning of life?" or "why are we here?". I don't even know why we ask the question. I don't think any answer suits everyone, and that's why we keep asking.

Factually speaking, we're just here and we're not all that important or unimportant. We're just a part of it all. If you love the universe, it should make you happy to know you belong to such an incredible set of random chances which includes toadfish and shooting stars and everything beautiful.

[Aggie]

okay, if you cannot find it, or am unfamiliar with it, here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0W7Jbc_Vhw

Oh, I liked that.

_{however.... and perhaps}  

...it's another example of the _{in my not-so-humble-opinion} bullshit black/white this-or-that divisive I-Have-The-Truthism I alluded to in the second paragraph of the OP.

[rant]I get screaming bloody frustrated (at least on the inside - I do try to maintain decorum) when I hear dismissals of science like those referenced in the poem. I FREAKING LOVE SCIENCE! It steams me up nearly as bad - actually, probably more - when I hear mangled bits of scientific fact mashed into 'theories' to support someone's pet fantasy*. Oh, I could rant here too about those that condemn the commercialism of the medical industry while naively thinking that any company peddling 'natural' medicine is doing it out of the kindness of their heart. Suckering those types is an even better game (albeit a smaller one) than peddling effective trial-based medicine, because the stuff doesn't even actually have to work on an empirical basis, and in most cases there's a much lower risk of serious side effects**.

<sub>*I am walking on thin ice here; due to my background, I tend to use fairly scientific language and rational thought-processes to explore my pet fantasies. Allow me the indulgence of continuing to think this is a different thing.  

**I do personally use herbs and foods as my first choice for dealing with minor complaints, the sort of stuff that one would use over-the-counter medication for. IMHO most of these cures are not nearly as effective at addressing acute symptoms compared to OTC drugs, but give you a bit of comfort while you're toughing out a minor complaint. In response to the poem's claim that natural medicine that works is called 'medicine' let me say: Natural medicine based on a single active component that can be extracted, tested in double-blind trials and effectively synthesized in a lab is called 'medicine'. Wholistic lifestyle-based approaches to health are called 'bunk', because they aren't as profitable as Doritos and getting people to park their ass in front of the TV, which coincidentally does rather increase the chances they'll need that good ol' modern medicine. Disclaimer: I'd be dead several times over without modern antibiotics.</sub>

However, I am also irked by the goddamned smugness of those so enamoured with and idolizing of Science that they cannot stand the thought that there may be other valid forms of knowing and knowledge available to humankind, and revel in belittling anyone that takes it upon themselves to seek for other forms. I have no doubt that scientific investigation, given an infinite amount of time, is capable of explaining the entire scope of the material universe. To think that the knowledge we currently have comes anywhere close to that is as foolish as stuffing faeries, gods and bugbears in to fill the gaps.  I also find ridiculous the starting premise that scientific exploration of the material, physical world can draw any conclusions whatsoever about the metaphysical. I would assume it's about as effective as using meditation as the main method of acquiring scientific knowledge.  [/rant]

(good to see I've at least placed the thread in the right area of the forum  )


Meta-physical....  beyond the physical...  something that by definition can't be addressed by physical exploration.  One of my personal guiding principals is that where the metaphysical and scientific principals disagree in describing the mechanisms of the physical world, the metaphysical explanation is overstepping it's application.  Automatic win for science. Metaphysical models aren't meant to be taken literally, IMHO. They are metaphors, methods of working with the limitations of the human mind to understand at a profound level what's going on behind the scenes of the physical mechanisms without the necessity of intimately understanding those mechanisms. It occurs to me that perhaps the reason that some of our most brilliant scientific minds (Dawkins or Hawking) strike out so strongly against the metaphysical is that they CAN grapple directly with the physical at a profound level. Not all of us can do so, even if we can follow along with their gracious explanations.  Exploring the metaphysical can offer surprisingly effective shortcuts to actually grokking the essence of aspects of our existence on a level that isn't reached (for me) by conceptually understanding the physical explanations.


Referencing the poem again...  it's those endless afternoons on Wiki-fucking-pedia, my ability to Google, to access this amazing, beautiful compilation of freely available information and Real. Solid. Fact. that we can now literally carry around like spare change in the pockets of our jeans that has to some degree devalued knowledge for me.  On a personal level, what the hell is the point of the acquisition of knowledge anymore? On a societal - no, a species level, the current availability and accessibility of knowledge makes further acquisition of knowledge via scientific investigation more important than ever - it's absolutely critical that we continue to accelerate our exploration now that we have the means to share and store this information.  However, for me as an individual, it seems largely pointless to learn anything more than I currently know unless it's in direct support of gaining a larger understanding of something I'm bending my mind to (hasn't yet stopped me from spending endless afternoons on Wiki-fucking-pedia to indulge my curiosity about everything and anything, but there's a growing sense of futility when I catch myself doing it). Knowing isn't understanding.  Not even close, sometimes. To me, it's the difference between studying a nicely illustrated recipe in a cookbook and sitting down to savour the smells, the taste, the mouthfeel and warmth of the prepared meal. Eating that meal, I might be able to guess what's in it or how it was prepared, but I certainly do not have the knowledge of it that someone who's studied the recipe does, but who has the greater understanding of what that meal is?


Isn't this enough? Just This World? Just this beautiful, complex wonderfully unfathomable, Natural World?


NO! I'm quite sorry, my dear Siblings, but for me this beautiful complex world is more than just a ticking clock to be stripped down to its gears and springs, to be laid out in careful figures, catalogued and categorized. Knowing how the clock fits together tells you little about the nature of time, and so it is with the world. This wonderful, natural world draws at me, calls to me, teases me and challenges me to open my eyes wider than I thought possible, to stare into those depths and seek to fathom the unfathomable, to see beyond the physical and to use any mode of perception I have or can create to align with it, find my place in it, and perchance to dream that by understanding it I may understand myself. Not to stuff it with monsters, not to take my wonder and awe as evidence that it was wished here by some bearded Sky-Father, not to shelter from the terror of the unknown in stories of eternal Paradise, but to embrace that wonder and awe and stride towards that terrible unknown with an open heart.

THAT is why I embrace the metaphysical. Your mileage may vary.
__________________________________________________________

_{I rather meant to address a few other posts, before launching into a three-hour rant.  I'll try to reply in the near future.}

[Opsa]

Aggie my dear, the poem was really good, and I really enjoyed it, but it was tremendously smug. At first I grimaced a bit when the word "vegetarian" was spat out as if all vegetarian opinion is to be disregarded as trash, but I also understood the whole thing to be tongue-in-cheek.

Here's a guy drunk at a dinner party going off like drunk guys at dinner parties will. They always think they know everything and wind up looking like dicks even when they think they are brilliant. My brother is one of these people. If he starts going off I immediately try to swerve the conversation, because no-one will win and he will wind up convinced he is right simply because he has a bunch of "factoids" (so help me, he really uses that word) that he got from whatever sources he believes to be the truth, and they cannot be refuted. By the way, my brother is an Xtian republican. If he had been at that dinner party there would have been nothing left of either of those guys. Wouldn't that be existentially ironic... _{now, how to arrange it?}